Human trafficking: It ain’t just for sex anymore

Dees Illustration

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

When we think of human trafficking most of us immediately assume that this occurs only in the arena of sexual exploitation.  At some point in time this may have been true.  Today, human trafficking encompasses many forms and there is not one of us who can safely assume that we would somehow be exempt from any type of human trafficking.

While the sexual exploitation and trafficking for the purposes of sex is often highlighted in MSM, rarely do they ever report on the trafficking that occurs courtesy of our courts, unscrupulous politicians and yes, even those demi-gods….doctors, therapists and psychiatrists.  There is money to be made exploiting the vulnerable, the sick, the weak, the aging (with assets) and even children who have been unfortunate enough to become wards of the state and forced into foster care.  While sexual activity may not be the cause and concern in these instances, what happens to these individuals is no less a form of human trafficking for profit.
In each of the above stated groups, the trafficking of human beings for profit is facilitated by social service agencies, corrupt probate courts, and family courts.  To be declared a “ward of the state”, is to be housed by, and to receive necessities and protection of the government.  It also means to lose any and all rights of any kind, whatsoever.  The “state” now owns what has become a chattel property and may do with that property whatever it desires to do.  This oftentimes includes a form of leasing out the ward for pharmaceutical experimentation and profit, as was exposed in Florida and Alaska, just to name two, over the last several years resulting in the exposure of massive Medicaid fraud as foster children are routinely forced to take off-label high gear psychotropic drugs and vaccines.  In a May, 2009 article, :author Evelyn Pringle notes:

It is hard to come up with an adjective that adequately conveys the horror this is inflicting on America’s children and youth. Suffice it to say that when the country wakes up to the carnage this has caused, it will be recognized as the largest iatrogenic (doctor caused) public health disaster in history.

These days, it seems more evident that the concern for children is not so much their safety and well-being, but rather; How much are they worth in the foster care system?  As with our public school systems, big pharma is more than willing to pay for every child added to the forced drugging programs.

Trafficking of the elderly (with assets)
The human trafficking of the elderly (with assets) has become a national epidemic and disgrace.  Probate courts routinely work with predatory professional guardians, payrolling attorneys, owners of notoriously abusive care facilities and social agencies to target and then obtain guardianship/conservatorship of the elderly whose only crime was to age with assets. These predatory professional guardians, strangers to the victim and their families, make their living robbing the estates of their victims.

Again, once this “guardianship” has been sanctioned by the cooperating probate judge, the victim loses all rights of any kind whatsoever and is for all intents and purposes “dead in the law”.  The guardian/conservator now legally owns the victim and can avail themselves of all of the victim’s assets of any kind.  These predators can and do instruct doctors to begin the administering of psychotropic medications not approved for use on the elderly, and many of the doctors who are also tapping the estate for inflated billing charges, comply with these requests.

Once legally kidnapped with the help of the cooperating probate judge and the local police department who conduct the kidnapping as a swat team raid, the victim is quickly housed in a participating facility and started on a drug regime that is seldom called for.

The drugs are especially useful when administered just prior to what is laughingly called a “competency hearing”.

The profits from human trafficking of the aging (with assets) was documented in the 2007 GAO report with estimates well over a billion in stolen assets obtained by professional predatory guardians/conservators and some family members across 48 states, although the GAO focused on  only 20 cases:

The GAO focused on cases in which a family member, agency, or private business was appointed as a guardian. In 20 cases, guardians appointed and approved by courts stole $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated adults. ”

The recent Committee on Aging hearing very carefully orchestrated and scripted the public hearing to make it appear that the abuse is most always at the hands of family and friends.  In truth, the largest percentage of cases of exploitation are committed by professional strangers who have a well established system in place with the same predators routinely involved in these deadly guardianships as is exemplified when examining the cases in a specific geographical area.  The same judges, the same predatory professional guardians, the same payrolling attorneys and the same doctors and participating facilities, all involved in one predatory case after another.  The staged committee hearing barely touched on this aspect of exploitation of the elderly, if at all.

What are you worth as a prisoner?
When John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General for the US under GW Bush, handed  down sentencing guidelines to the states, not one state refused those guidelines even though Ashcroft was not lawfully empowered to make such demands.  The result has been a explosion in the number of individuals held in federal and state prisons, many for what should have been short term sentences for minor crimes.  This allowed Merrill Lynch to begin selling prisoner bonds, globally.  And ML isn’t the only company engaged in the profitable human trafficking trade of selling human beings on the open market.

The sentencing guidelines were needed to confirm that prisoner X would be available for exploitation and forced labor for a guaranteed length of time.  The whole system is run by
C.J.T.S.  a corporation dedicated to the tracking and coding of prisoners and provides the software to do it.  Using this system and one called CUSIP:

From Owners of the American Prison System

a nine digit number (called Ordnance Number) is issued for the Certificate of Stocks going internationally to ANNA (Lynn’s note: see link for ANNA which is in Brussels, Belgium at www.cusip.com ). These Securities are sold through the Commodity and Security Exchange. The bottom line is they are selling stocks in the prison system. The jails are referred to as Warehouses and the prisoners are called Goods

From the moment a person is arrested for any reason, the prisoner cash register starts ringing. This can be for something as simple as a traffic ticket.  The law enforcement department making the arrest assigns a pre-defined code to the charges being made.  This code has a monetary value and the money starts rolling from this point on all the way through the system.  Publicly traded prisoner stocks, took a tumble in 2008, but look as if they will rebound as the Obama Administration along with Senators McCain and Lieberman, and others such as Graham and Shumer devise plans to increase ever greater numbers of US citizens under the false flag of national security.

Prisoners can also be subjected to forced drugging, pharmaceutical experimentation or exposure to pathogens among many other things.

Are you safe?

Never think for a moment that you are safe from the predator class.  If anyone sees the opportunity to make a buck off you, your kids, your parents or anyone for that matter, you can quickly find yourself totally disenfranchised, without rights, without defense and without any means of extricating yourself from the system.

Human trafficking has evolved.  We are now all considered commodities to be sold, traded, and used on the global market and as the global demand for organ transplants increases any one of us could be worth more dead than alive.  We have been totally devalued as human beings and rendered as commodities.  Our own government refers to us as “human capital, or as human expenditures” as if we were used cars sitting on a government sale lot.
 ___________________
Arizona and exploitation of vulnerable adults in probate courts
 What is a “ward” ?   
 a. Law A minor or incompetent person placed under the care or protection of a guardian or court.b.A person under the protection or care of another.7. The state of being under guard; custody.8. The act of guarding or protecting; guardianship.
chat·tel
n.
1. Law An article of movable personal property.
2. A slave.

Massive Medicaid Fraud Exposed in Psychiatric Drugging of Kids in US

Legally kidnapped: PBS reports Forced drugging of foster care kids 

Prisoners of the system: Corporate organized crime runs the system of human trafficking for profit

Slave labor in Georgia

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left.  Her website is The PPJ Gazette.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

LAPD Moves to Further Restrict Public Oversight

Wiki Image

Janet Phelan 

Salem-News

In a startling reversal of an established transparency policy, the Los Angeles Police Department has refused a recent routine records request, citing a 1993 court case, County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar).

The Kusar case affirmed the public's right to view contemporaneous records and the LAPD has cited this case in its refusal to release a record which is only nine months old. Coupled with the restrictions contained in Government Code 6254, which inhibits the disclosure of issues under investigation, the PD has effectively locked down information about any and all police records.

The specific issue surrounds a request made by this reporter on March 9, 2011 for the report pertinent to the detention of a Los Angeles resident. Jeannie Tanaka was taken into custody on June 10, 2010 upon an allegation that she had violated a Restraining Order. Tanaka was apparently released prior to being booked, after the Beverly Hills PD discovered that there was no Restraining Order in effect.

Jeannie Tanaka, sixty nine years old, is an attorney with the State of California and was visiting her mother, Jean, who is a conservatee. According to Tanaka, the conservator Linda Cotterman called the police and falsely claimed that Tanaka was under a R.O. According to Tanaka's statement to this reporter, she was surprised by the arrival of the police and was handcuffed and taken away in front of her mother during a pleasant and otherwise uneventful visit.

While the Public Information office of the LAPD has orally confirmed Tanaka was released prior to booking, that office has refused to produce any records concerning the incident. Initially, PIO Karen Paynes stated that no electronic record exists and that this reporter would have to pay for an unspecified number of hours of research, as the clerks physically pawed through storage boxes for the nine month old report.

The Public Information Office later abandoned that response and on March 18 issued a letter which could be seen as stating a policy which effectively locks down all police records. The letter, signed by Martin Bland, states that “in accordance with the California Government Code Section 6254 (F) (2) specific information must ordinarily be disclosed from law enforcement files if it relates to contemporaneous law enforcement activity (See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar).....The information contained in the report does not relate to contemporaneous law enforcement activity; therefore, I am denying your request.”

However, the California Public Records Act specifically prohibits disclosure of records pertinent to issues that are under investigation, which reasonably may be seen as contemporaneous. By now including records that are not contemporaneous in the list of what cannot be disclosed, the PD has potentially sealed off all records from public view. The letter does not specifically define “contemporaneous” and could possibly reference any report that is not active and not under investigation. Logically, this is a perfect “Catch 22.”

The implications of this are unsettling, to say the very least. The citation of the Kusar case could be seen as paving the way for the police to operate under a mantle of complete secrecy. One could easily project into a not-so-distant future where these two legal citations, in conjunction, could be used to create a modern day “Secret Police.”

In other, oppressive regimes police have been able to disappear people who have become politically inconvenient. The effects of such practices, infamous in Soviet Russia and Pinochet's Chile -- to name a couple of examples in recent history-- have created a reign of fear among the populace.
 
America now seems to be creating the legal structure to accomplish precisely the same thing.

Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist whose articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The San Bernardino County Sentinel, The Santa Monica Daily Press, The Long Beach Press Telegram, Oui Magazine and other regional and national publications. Her poetry has been published in Gambit, Libera, Applezaba Review, Nausea One and other magazines. Her first book, The Hitler Poems, was published in 2005. She currently resides abroad. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Police 'Involvement' in Conservatorship Issues?

Salem-News Image

Janet Phelan
Salem-News

I stood at the Probate clerk's window at Redlands court, craning my neck to read the top sheet of a thick stack of papers which faced away from me. The page was stamped in large, bold letters “CONFIDENTIAL.” That alone was enough to get my attention.

And the clerk was in the back, digging through boxes to find a file I had requested, and had left me alone with the documents, albeit somewhat out of my reach. As I read upside down, I realized that this was a police notification concerning escaped “human property,” a conservatee. A conservatee is someone with no legal rights, and one had just escaped the confines of his genteel prison and was on the loose.

I read on. The conservatee in question was fifty seven years old, a bit young for dementia, I thought, and was described as wearing a baseball cap, T-shirt and shorts. An APB had been put out on the escapee.

For those who are unaware of the gaping legal loophole in “equality and justice for all,” a conservatee (in some states referred to as a ward) is someone who has been stripped of all his rights and all his assets through a legal proceeding. 

Conservatorships are generally launched through an action in probate court, when there are allegations that a person may be becoming forgetful or otherwise demonstrating that they are lacking capacity. Often these are ex parte hearings and the person under scrutiny may not even be in the courtroom.

Upon the initiation of a conservatorship of estate, all the person's assets are transferred to the care and protection of the conservator or guardian. A conservatorship of person transfers the personal decisions of the alleged incapacitated person to the conservator.

As many conservators have both powers delegated to them, the potential for financial exploitation becomes of grave concern. In many cases, a capacity hearing never takes place and a conservatorship is established on allegations alone. Conservatorships are very expensive, often requiring the services of multiple lawyers as well as mandating a high rate of recompense for the conservator.

Police intervention in conservatorships is not only restricted to capturing a runaway ward. 

Increasingly,the police are becoming involved in restraining or incarcerating a family member who is trying to contact or protect a ward. Upping the ante, the police have now involved themselves in jailing someone who was speaking out critically against probate judges.

Robert Gettinger was nearly asleep, he recalls, when a light illuminated his bedroom and he heard a police bullhorn ordering him to come out with his hands up. It was winter in Frazier Park, California and Gettinger, a former police officer himself, came out of his house dressed only in a T-shirt and underwear. It was just before midnight on February 7, 2011.

Gettinger recalls at least ten officers in tactical gear, with guns drawn surrounded his house that night, including Sheriff's officers and Pasadena Police. He put up no resistance and was taken into custody and transported to the Pasadena Jail, where he was booked. 

It was not until he was taken from his cell for the initial interrogation, several hours later, that he discovered what he had done to receive this elevated level of attention.

A few months back, when Katie Couric ran a special report on national television revealing problems in the guardianship system, Robert Gettinger had posted a number of criticisms of local judges on the CBS website. 

Couric's report focused on the plight of Marie Long, a conservatee in Arizona and revealed that the Government Accountability Office had recently released a report stating that there were reports coming in from across the U.S. alleging criminal misconduct by conservators.

While a Los Angeles Superior court judge, Terry Smerling, had reviewed the posts made by Gettinger on the internet and had signed a search warrant, the District Attorney did not find that the evidence against Gettinger was sufficient to file criminal charges against him and after a couple of days in jail, Gettinger was released from custody. 

He states that he had waived his Miranda rights and was cooperating with the police as he did not believe he had committed any crime. His certificate of release, which was obtained by Salem News, states that he was never arrested, only “detained.” The release papers cite California Penal Code 849, stating that the police may release an individual from custody and term his arrest to be a detention when the police are “satisfied that there is no ground for making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.”

A review of the comments made by Gettinger on the CBS website has left this reporter baffled. An obviously passionate Gettinger was highly critical of a number of local judges, including Candace Beason, Aviva K. Bobb and David Yaffe, and made repeated pleas that they be brought to justice and punished for their crimes against U.S. citizens. The expression of such opinions is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and does not violate the law.

In an attempt to ascertain the cause of action against Gettinger, this reporter obtained the initial police report. No crime or penal code number was indicated, and the report only stated that there were “suspicious circumstances.” A section which presumably contained a written complaint about Gettinger was completely blacked out.

According to Gettinger, his mother, Gertrude Gettinger, was placed into a conservatorship without notice to the family and on false statements by his sister, Sylvia Schmidt. Gettinger alleges that Schmidt had been estranged from both of their parents and is solely motivated by greed. 

Gertrude had accumulated property and assets in excess of two million dollars which are now under the control of Schmidt, who, according to Robert Gettinger, has hidden numerous bank accounts and stolen property belonging to Gertrude.

He alleges that Sylvia has exaggerated, if not completely confabulated, reports of Gertrude's “mental illness” and provided evidence to this reporter that Schmidt was coaching doctors as to what kind of letters to produce to substantiate Schmidt's statements of Gertrude's diminished capacity. Per records reviewed by this reporter, Gertrude Gettinger has been drugged with powerful mind altering drugs without her agreement.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Corrupt LA Judges Fall Like Dominoes

Leslie Dutton

Full Disclosure Network 

Having never been charged or convicted of a crime, Richard I. Fine spent 18 months in solitary "coercive confinement" in the L A County Men's Central Jail following his attempt to disqualify a judge who had admitted taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal payments from a party to the case before him.   That party was the County of Los Angeles and the case was the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association who hired Richard Fine, to represent them in their opposition to a massive development on county-owned property in Marina del Rey.

Richard Fine is a a 71-year-old former U S anti-trust attorney who served in the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. who holds a Ph.D in International Law and has practiced public interest law for over 40 years.  He was very successful winning cases against the government on behalf of taxpayers and women and children whose child support money was being diverted from them to the County.  In 1990's he discovered that no one could win a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, the reason, the State Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles were being paid off by the County with illegal double benefits that have now amounted to more than $350 million dollars. 

In 2008 the Judicial Watch public interest law firm won a case against L A County that held their double benefit payments to the judges, who were State employees, were illegal and unconstitutional. The Judges retaliated and got an emergency bill passed in the State Legislature, giving them retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution and attempted to legalize  the payments.

The mainstream media ignored the plight of this 70-year-old attorney, but the story was too big to be squelched.  Public outrage was sparked by Internet video reports TV shows on public access channels and on Internet websites that were spreading the word while Richard Fine was waging an intense legal battle from his jail cell without an attorney.   His health was deteriorating and he was without an upper dental plate.  But he continued the fight from the Superior Court to the U S Supreme Court the entire battle was documented by the Full Disclosure Network public affairs television show.  The spectacle of corruption in the Judicial and Court system eventually cause the Judge to inexplicably release Richard Fine, stating in his release order that Dr. Fine had been held for 18 months to "deter other attorneys" from challenging judges.
He continues the battle to restore integrity to the Judicial system to this day.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Jury Says Blogger Has To Pay For His Words Even Though He Did Not Lie

Blogger Johnny Northside

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

On Friday, a Minnesota jury found that a blogger must pay $60,000 in damages because of statements he published in his blog about a public figure who was subsequently fired from his job.  Internet publishers and free speech advocates should pay close attention to this case if it is appealed because the blogger was found liable even though the jury did not find that the blogger's statements were false.

This decision is the latest example of the law's apparent struggle to apply basic constitutional protections to internet publishers.  If the Minnesota ruling holds up, it will mean that bloggers will have to worry they will be forced to pay for true statements that they publish that cause a person damages.


In June 2009, Jerry Moore was fired from the University of Minnesota after blogger John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside wrote a blog post criticizing the college for hiring Moore.  In the post, Hoff criticized Moore's previous work as Executive Director of a community organization and linked Moore to a real estate scandal.  In the post, Hoff stated, "Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave N."

Following his firing, Moore brought a lawsuit in Minnesota state court (copy of complaint), claiming Hoff was liable for defamation and intentional interference with his contract with the school.  The case went to trial last week and on Friday, the jury returned its verdict in favor of Hoff on the defamation claim but against him on the intentional interference with contract count.

The jury found Hoff was not liable for defamation because they were not convinced that the blogger's statements about Moore were false.  The jury returned the following interrogatory (answer in bold):

1.  Was the statement “Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.” false? No

Although it has been reported elsewhere that the jury found that Hoff's statement was true, that is not precisely correct.  The jury found that Moore did not prove that Hoff's statement was false, not that the statement was true.

Since the publishing of a false statement is a basic element of a defamation claim, that finding was enough to defeat the defamation count.  Although the judge had previously ruled that Moore was a limited public figure, which would have also required the jury to find actual malice in order to prove defamation, the jury stopped at the first question and did not make a finding on actual malice.

Moore's failure to prove a false statement seemingly should have been the end of the entire case against Hoff, but it was not.  Even without a false statement, the court allowed the jury to find against the blogger on the intentional interference with contract claim and awarded Moore $35,000 in damages for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress.

Generally, intentional interference with contract occurs when someone knows about a contractual relationship and intentionally induces one of the parties to breach the contract.  If the other party to the contract suffers damages, he can sometimes sue to recover his losses.

In the absence of First Amendment protections, this case might be a reasonable example of an intentional interference with contract.  Hoff's blog posts give the impression that he knew about Moore's contract with the college and that his posts were at least partially intended to convince the college to fire Moore, which they did.  However, Constitutional free speech protections should not permit a plaintiff such as Moore to fail to make a defamation case against a publisher, but still be able to backdoor his damages through another claim.

The Minnesota case reminds me of the famous 1988 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell case, in which a jury found that Hustler publisher Larry Flynt was not liable for defamation, but found him liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Reverend Falwell.  Unlike the Minnesota case, the Falwell case specifically focused on a publisher's right to publish satire of a public figure rather than the right to publish direct factual claims, but in both cases, a jury found against a publisher even though they found the publisher was not liable for defamation.

Hustler Falwell Parody

Flynt appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, who overturned the jury finding in favor of Falwell because the First Amendment demands that the proper action against a public figure is a defamation suit, not a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court reasoned that criticism of public figures, such as Falwell or Moore, is sometimes going to cause unfortunate damages, but this important form of speech must be protected by "a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability."

This does not mean that a publisher is free to say anything about a public figure, whether true or false, without repercussions.  The Court explained that the First Amendment does not allow unfettered speech without any limits and culpability because of the particularly insidious nature of false statements.  The Court stated that a defamation claim, which requires a showing of a false statement, is the appropriate action to bring against a publisher because:

False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truthseeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective.

The same analysis should be applied to the Minnesota case.  Even if Hoff's statements damaged Moore, who was deemed a public figure, if those statements were not false and did not reach the level of defamation, the First Amendment should protect Hoff from having to pay damages.  Allowing Moore to recover for intentional interference with contract is not very different from allowing Jerry Falwell to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In both cases, a jury has ruled that the publisher's speech was not defamatory, yet the plaintiff is awarded the damages caused by that speech.

Legal commentator Eugene Volokh believes that the ruling against Hoff will be ruled unconstitutional if the case is appealed.  He also astutely adds that most states have a rule of intentional interference with contract that states that “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person … truthful information.”

Hoff's attorneys have stated they plan to appeal the decision and they should.  If a decision like this is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on bloggers' ability to do the important work of making true factual accusations against politicians and other public figures.

Bloggers and other publishers must be free to expose these true facts, even if those facts bring a public figure down without fear that they will have to compensate the public figure for the fall.  Otherwise, would we find ourselves in a country where Woodward and Bernstein would have to had to pay Richard Nixon for the losses caused by his impeachment and loss of job as President even if they were telling the truth about Watergate?

David Makarewicz is an attorney practicing internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit Dave at Sites and Blogs to keep up with breaking Internet news.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner